mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Coverage, Not Targeting: A Structural Regime in Multi-Turn Agent Credit Assignment

arXiv 2609.02417 ↗First posted 2 Sep 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Reinforcement learning for LLM agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-turn agentic RL increasingly treats credit assignment as a targeting problem: given a terminal verifiable reward, per-turn methods localize credit onto the turns that mattered. We identify the structural quantity that predicts when this is the right move, the verifier information density V_d = k/C (the fraction of an agent's C-step causal chain whose per-turn correctness the verifier exposes), and show that terminal-state verifiers sit deep in a low-V_d regime where targeting is the wrong axis. In controlled shared-rollout comparisons on tau^2-bench that separate reward density from credit geometry, a continuous dense reward spread uniformly beats the sparse binary outcome reward (net-harmful on 4/5 seeds), while concentrating the same advantage on progress turns or on random turns is equally harmful: targeting is second-order. The mechanism is coverage: terminal-state verification collapses the observable signal to a single final-write turn (k=1 in 98% of rollouts) while success requires a 5-8 step chain of prerequisite tool calls. A synthetic phase boundary places the crossover at V_d* ~ 0.8, whereas measured V_d is ~0.15 on tau^2-bench and ~0.4 on BFCL V3; uniform also wins on BFCL, where a matched-concentration shuffled control is negative on 8/8 seeds. The effect reproduces across model families on ToolACE-2-8B (Delta = -0.048 over 32 pre-registered seeds; an independent 20-seed replication is itself significant), and a pre-registered matched-budget breadth sweep traces a monotone dose-response whose deficit vanishes only at full chain coverage, with a reward-to-go arm reaching full-coverage parity. Uniform redistribution is the zero-information coverage default that per-turn schemes must beat; we contribute the matched-concentration shuffled control that any targeting claim should clear.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reinforcement learning for LLM agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 24 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2026.

Builds on

24 of 31 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Verifiable Process Rewards for Agentic Reasoning11 May
  2. 2026Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning for Tool-Calling Agents with Iterative Reward Calibration3 Apr
  3. 2026Proximity-Based Multi-Turn Optimization: Practical Credit Assignment for LLM Agent Training22 Feb
  4. 2025Group-in-Group Policy Optimization for LLM Agent Training16 May
  5. 2025ToolRL: Reward is All Tool Learning Needs16 Apr
  6. 2025SWEET-RL: Training Multi-Turn LLM Agents on Collaborative Reasoning Tasks19 Mar
  7. 2024ArCHer: Training Language Model Agents via Hierarchical Multi-Turn RL29 Feb

Other references · 17

  1. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
  2. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
  3. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  4. 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
  5. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
  6. 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,134
  7. 2017Hindsight Experience Replaycited by 1,096
  8. 2025Group Sequence Policy Optimizationcited by 788
  9. 2025τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environmentcited by 558
  10. 2024AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agentscited by 359
  11. 2022ScienceWorld: Is your Agent Smarter than a 5th Grader?cited by 298
  12. 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 272
5 more
  1. 2024ToolACE: Winning the Points of LLM Function Callingcited by 204
  2. 2018RUDDER: Return Decomposition for Delayed Rewardscited by 162
  3. 2019Hindsight Credit Assignmentcited by 74
  4. 2025Hybrid Reinforcement: When Reward Is Sparse, It's Better to Be Densecited by 19
  5. 2026Coverage, Not Credit: Failure-Credit Routing of Zeroth-Order Perturbation Budgets Does Not Improve On-Pool Sample Efficiency for LLM Agentscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Teach the Magnitude, Not the Direction: Verifier-Bounded Credit Assignment for Multi-Turn Multi-step LLM Agents
  2. 2026TRACE: Turn-level Reward Assignment via Credit Estimation for Long-Horizon Agents
  3. 2026TCPO: Turn-Level Credit Policy Optimization
  4. 2026VETTA: Coordinating Turn- and Token-Level Credit Assignment for Multi-Turn LLM Agents
  5. 2026AgentOPSD: Recursive Self-Distillation for Agentic Reinforcement Learning
  6. 2025Reinforcing Multi-Turn Reasoning in LLM Agents via Fine-Grained Reward Structure and Credit Assignment
  7. 2026PAIR: Prefix-Aware Internal Reward Model for Multi-Turn Agent Optimization
  8. 2026SQL-ASTRA: Alleviating Sparse Feedback in Agentic SQL via Column-Set Matching and Trajectory Aggregation